my Tent, etc.)
The ESSJ (Slovenian dictionary) has the following expressions for šotor (tent in different languages – all of them connected to the word Peter)
- šotor (Slovenian)
- šator, čador (Serbian)
- cadur (Turkish)
- čader (Persian)
- chattra (Old Indian – meaning sunshade)
This is what Slovenian dictionary of literary language says about the word šotor. I’d like to add some other words connected either with Peter or šotor:
- Hebrew word bet. Bet is a house made of concrete (Slovenian word beton), that’s why bet is a stone and the beginning of the name Peter. Peter is translated as rock in translations of gospels, due to the fact that the Greek word petra means a rock.
The word Betlehem is made of the words bet + Luza.
There was a small village, named Luza near Betlehem where Jakob, when fleeing, spent the night. That night he saw a ladder and on it angels, climbing up and down it. This is the place of today’s Betlehem.
- Atrium. The Latin word atrium lacks supporting letter p; atrium, patrium reflectively can be equated with the word Peter. Atrium is of course a building where people meet. According to the venetologists the word atrium means ontrij, inner, inside. I don’t agree. The word atrium is, as I have said, Latin. Regarding the words petra (rock) and šotor (tent) it has to be taken into account that the tent is an archetype of each building, as a tent or as a stone building. So the meanings rock, stone respectively are of secondary formation.
- Hatur, the name of Egyptian Goddess is also the name of the midday sun. Etymological connection between Hatur and Peter: h-atur : P-eter, (atur-eter =eter) both names denote a holy person.
- Patareni, later named Chatari in Italy, means pure. In my opinion both words came from the word Peter. Pure for Peter is of tertiary meaning, secondary is rock and primary tent (šotor). Peter was in dispute with Paul who was introducing the worship of Mary, while Patareni worshiped Mary Magdalene. I can only speculate why they were called Patareni – pure. Maybe they believed that their worship of the Merovings was purer than worship of Mary? By finding connection between Patareni and Peter I supported the justified assumptions of the existence of the Merovings.
- Even the Jew celebrate the Feast of tents.
- What about Black Peter? Is it only a card game or more? Black and handsome, synama sundara in Sanskrit respectively, is a supplement of the divine Krishna, therefore: Krishna black and handsome or Krishna syama sundara.
It is important to understand the word black the Asian way, where black is the color of joy and nobility, which matches the divine beings, unless they are walking around naked like Buddha. As far as nakedness is concerned, Peter too, according to Gospel, was naked when fishing with John the Baptist.
Therefore, the Black Peter? It is true that he is not connected with the tent, nevertheless, his connection to the saying that the card players will not see the Kingdom of Heaven, cannot be quite denied. In other words, they are not worth of the Holy tent, joining the Earth and Heaven.
There are two other feagures I see as a possible Antipeter. (Antipeter means the fall from the divine height. The fall of Peter’s name.) They are both women.
- Putifarka, who seduced Joseph of Egypt; she even stripped him naked.
- Phaedra, Hellenic double of Putifarka Zuleika. Through the word Zuleika the Hebrew Salomon is a copy of Zuleika. Salomon is royal title for the heir to the throne. Putifar was the third in the kingdom, which is a high position, his wife sitting in his shade. Zuleika as Salomon and Phaedra as Peter, both radiate appetite for divinity and perfection. The word Putifar can be regarded, so to say, as a chip of the word Putipharaoh. (Sic! Peterpharaoh, this set of words, Peter and Pharaoh are not without a lasting value. Etymologically the words Peter and Putifar are equivalent and need to be treated as such.)
BLIND ISAAC
Let me start with two questions:
- Is the biblical Isaac history or nature?
- What do we know about history or nature?
History envies nature. Nature envies history. The Earth and the whole life on it is driven and guided by two forces: nature and history. Our perception of history is its constant alteration of the natural due to the human activity, for example wars, political decisions and delusions etc. The expression nature found its foundation with the creation of life on the Earth. This first life, the spark is a biological factor, the biological rudiment that has not in a million years been touched by man’s hand.
So much about nature. What about history? It seems as if it doesn’t exist. Man’s yearning for peace is not yearning for history. History are wars, peace is nature. (historiography is full of lies that prevent an insight into the true happenings).
Nature is leaning on genera. From the historical point of view, the ruling houses are made up formations of one of the genus believing to be superior to the others in a multimillion nation, which is, in fact, a sin against the natural law. It is said that history is our teacher which is a lie to me, as for the nature, we are all well aware of the fact that it can revenge.
Let’s return to Isaac and the question whether he is nature or history.
I personally think he is a witness to history burdened with nature’s revenge. He will be a president of a world force and an invalid. I’ve come to this conclusion because Isaac, Abraham’s second son was blind and a victim of his mother’s sin, committing it when she laughed in God’s face.
The Isaac of today will be an adequate. Unlike their originals, the adequates (1) are more history than nature. The first group, the original one are Abraham, Lot and Sarah. They were main figures in their period, their adequates are main figures in their own historical period.
Adequates - are they stolen names having to accept beside the name the sins and burdens of their predecessors or even original as well? What is left when they are stripped of their clothes? Well, under their clown clothes (dressed like kings and presidents or wearing ties and black suits and dresses, with no accessories), they are nothing but nature. Dressed up they are faked history, exposed to nature’s revenge.
Nature is more beautiful than we see it and history is more terrible than we are aware of.
Let me tell one example how nature can revenge. This is an example of men, rulers, having claimed the right to take the helm of history in their hands and acting the role of umpires. However, what is our perception of them now? Mostly negative. Most of them are thought to have been criminals. That is how nature revenges. There is one additional thing men, who believe to be superior to women and nation, should know. They (including me, sorry to say) are but ballast of nature, making up the history. The proof for being a ballast is that they are biologically dying out.
As far as the domination of one over the other is concerned, through history the tide was turning once in women’s favor and then in men’s.
Unequal treatment of men and women goes as far back as to the time when Adam and Eve were created. The biblical ‘He created them both’ should mean he created them equal, for the word both means equal, yet we know it was not true. Eve was accused of the original sin just because she was a woman.
But if I return to the adequates. Do some people really get the clue that they are, in fact, figures living before them, not reincarnations of them, just having the same capabilities or options (they always believe to be adequates of influential, wealthy people, of course) or do they just imagine to have received the clues? For example, Hitler, imposing on the Arabic world his belief to be Jesus who will defeat the legendary monster.
If a person believes that he is an adequate, then he knows that all he has to do is to imitate the previous adequates, because they were doing the right thing otherwise they wouldn’t be successful. So by imitating them he cannot miss. However, he will never admit he is imitating anybody, he acts as a completely autochthonous and autonomous person. Each adequate thinks to be superior to the former one. (Proof? Politicians). A
nd we call them (or do they call themselves?) Fathers of the nation!
And now, what exactly would it mean to find the blind Isaac? Finding an important piece of truth?
Once again: Abraham, Lot and Sarah were the first trinity, the original the basic trinity. They are predecessors of the contemporary trinity Bush jr., Laden and the Popess. There are many similarities or common points between the two trinities. Let’s find some of them in the Old Testament and then translate them into our time.
When Abraham raises the knife to kill his son Isaac, an angel appears who might even be the God himself, and the light coming from him additionally blinds the young Isaac. (the Isaac of the Old Testament was blinded by god’s will.) Today? This act is a basis for the belief, cherished by many that whatever happens in god’s name is right, justified.
Lot, drunk, is forced into an intercourse with his daughters who thus ensured the continuity of the humanity. Today: is that how magnates are having fun?
Sarah laughed in God’s face; after giving birth to her son Isaac she drew Abraham’s second wife Hagar and Hagar’s son Ishmael into the desert, away from Abrahan. Today: Sarah’s attitude towards Hagar is noticed in the status of Mlada Breda (Young -Breda – Slovenian drama), as well as of some daughters-in-law on some royal-courts.
Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt. Today? Salt is of high importance